]]>
Comment on The state of global biodiversity — it’s worse than you probably think by Extinction Anxiety | ConservationBytes.com https://conservationbytes.com/2020/01/24/the-state-of-global-biodiversity-its-worse-than-you-probably-think/#comment-155210
Thu, 21 May 2020 04:40:57 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=208667#comment-155210[…] For more information on the state of global biodiversity, see this previous post. […]

]]>
Comment on Shifting from prevention to damage control by Rod Holden https://conservationbytes.com/2020/05/05/shifting-from-prevention-to-damage-control/#comment-151674
Tue, 05 May 2020 23:57:54 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=209399#comment-151674Corey,

I’m 52 and I hear you, but pull yourself together man, the world needs people like you more than ever. We CAN turn it around!! Yes, we’ve lost a lot so far and the prognosis isn’t good, but giving up never won the race. Yes, we still need damage control, but we much more need ways to change the outcome.

For a bit of hope…I spoke with a new partner at UQ the other day and we had the same conversation. She was telling me that she’s surprised that people she’s known for years (gen Y) that have never raised so much as an eyebrow are joining the greens party and the like…all from the time of reflection we’ve had from the covid-19 lockdown.

]]>
Comment on Why do conservation scientists get out of bed? by Shifting from prevention to damage control | ConservationBytes.com https://conservationbytes.com/2012/10/01/why-conservations-get-out-of-bed/#comment-151448
Tue, 05 May 2020 05:09:45 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=7780#comment-151448[…] I still get out of bed in the morning for the main reason that I hope my work does some good in the world, but I can no longer focus on […]

]]>
Comment on What is a ‘mass extinction’ and are we in one now? by Shifting from prevention to damage control | ConservationBytes.com https://conservationbytes.com/2019/11/13/what-is-a-mass-extinction-and-are-we-in-one-now/#comment-151447
Tue, 05 May 2020 05:09:42 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=207771#comment-151447[…] faster than even some of the most pessimistic of us could have predicted. We are without doubt within the sixth mass extinction event every experienced on the Earth for at least the last 600 million […]

]]>
Comment on The state of global biodiversity — it’s worse than you probably think by Shifting from prevention to damage control | ConservationBytes.com https://conservationbytes.com/2020/01/24/the-state-of-global-biodiversity-its-worse-than-you-probably-think/#comment-151446
Tue, 05 May 2020 05:09:39 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=208667#comment-151446[…] rationale for that contention is that it is undeniable that biodiversity is going down the toilet faster than even some of the most pessimistic of us could have predicted. We are without doubt […]

]]>
Comment on How I feel now about climate change by Shifting from prevention to damage control | ConservationBytes.com https://conservationbytes.com/2020/03/10/how-i-feel-now-about-climate-change/#comment-151445
Tue, 05 May 2020 05:09:36 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=209130#comment-151445[…] before much of the world morphed into the weirdness that now dictates all facets of life, I wrote an update for the Is This How You Feel project led by Joe […]

]]>
Comment on The state of global biodiversity — it’s worse than you probably think by Storytelling, biodiversity and COVID-19 – Amicable Discourse https://conservationbytes.com/2020/01/24/the-state-of-global-biodiversity-its-worse-than-you-probably-think/#comment-149547
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 04:05:46 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=208667#comment-149547[…] Now to our present situation – we have remodelled the world to an extent undreamt of by the humble architects of the Tower of Babel. See here: […]

]]>
Comment on A fairer way to rank a researcher’s relative citation performance? by Stuart Hurlbert https://conservationbytes.com/2020/04/23/a-fairer-way-to-rank-a-researchers-relative-citation-performance/#comment-148835
Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:31:37 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=209346#comment-148835Corey, Your approach here entails a number of premises that you might try to defend explicitly. Let me number them:

1) that there is any utility in or justification for looking for a single “best” way of ranking “relative citation performance” (RCP)
2) that any RCP based on combining separate measures introduces a high degree of subjectivity driven by a) the subjective decision as to which measures are selected, and b) the way in which these are always, implicitly or explicitly, weighted relative to each other.
3) that such composite RCPs (CRCPs) can serve serious intellectual or administrative purposes despite this subjectivity and arbitrariness.
4) that the h-index in particular merits serious consideration. I read much of the early literature on this and never found intelligible justification. Consider two persons, A and B, who over the same period of time published three articles each. Respective citation frequencies were 7, 3, and 5 for A ,and 3, 140 and 2700 for B — in what way are these two records equal just because each has an h-index of 3?
5) that it make sense to take C(max) into account but not total no. of citations
6) that there is a clear, logical, quantitative way to try to take age or length of professional life or “career interruptions” into account.

Researchers and pundits can do as they like, of course, but it would be dangerous for any decision-making bodies (e.g. deans, faculty search committees, promotions committees, awards committees, etc.) to make ANY use of a composite measure of citation records. Just as it would be without purpose to get a composite measure of body size by, e.g., taking the geometric mean of height, width and weight. Or to get a composite measure of virtue by combining measures of …… whatever.

One datum that would be of great interest but that is NOT currently available anywhere is the total multiplicity-adjusted citation frequency (MACF) for authors. This would adjust for the number of authors (n) on a paper so that each author was credited with only TC/n citations, where TC = total citations for that paper. There are some fields where n is typically very small (e.g. paleontology, systematics, mathematics, engineering) and others where is is very high (e.g. molecular biology, exoplanets, clinical trials). On top of that, there is large variation just due to the personalities and m.o.s of individual researchers.

Isn’t the conclusion that a multidimensional tabulation is what would be most intelligible and appropriate for any comparison of scientists that might be used in any way for decision-making?

This would allow each viewer of such a tabulation to weigh, subconsciously, each measure according to his/her own lights rather than being confronted with a confusing composite measure based on subjective weightings by others.

A modest set of intelligible measures should be sufficient. I’d suggest:

TC, MACF, 10-index, C(max), years since first peer-reviewed publication and total no. of peer-reviewed publications (though this latter is not always so easily determined).

]]>
Comment on How to rank journals by A fairer way to rank a researcher’s relative citation performance? | ConservationBytes.com https://conservationbytes.com/2016/02/18/how-to-rank-journals/#comment-148772
Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:57:41 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=18222#comment-148772[…] first acknowledge that just like journal ranks, a researcher’s citation performance should only be viewed as relative to a comparison group. […]

]]>
Comment on Victoria, please don’t aerial-bait dingoes by Elaine Di Battista https://conservationbytes.com/2019/10/10/victoria-please-dont-aerial-bait-dingoes/#comment-148119
Sun, 19 Apr 2020 23:45:24 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=207403#comment-148119Please stop killing our native animals, Dingoes!!! They help keep the population of feral animals down and have a right to live on their own land. Cats, rabbits and other feral animals are what’s needed to be eradicated. Human overpopulation also needs to be managed now rather than later.

]]>
Comment on South Australia is still killing dingoes by Rose Miras https://conservationbytes.com/2020/04/14/south-australia-is-still-killing-dingoes/#comment-147972
Sun, 19 Apr 2020 08:56:45 +0000http://conservationbytes.com/?p=209294#comment-147972Shame on you !!
Stop the senseless killing !!
You do not own the world, it belongs to
all creatures!!
Absolutely disgusting !!